Some skeptics have a difficult time understanding Divine Rights. Who does God think He is, anyway? This argument leaves no doubt that if a Biblical god exists, His declarations of morality and purpose are objective realities, while human morality and purpose can only be imaginary in the absence of a Biblical god. This is the argument to use when skeptics accuse Christians of having an 'imaginary' friend. Why?

Because it exposes their own life as an imaginative game of make-believe.


In an atheistic philosophy, there are certain things that concern the reality of life that must be accepted as illusion because, without God, that is the only thing they can be. We live our lives as if they have a real and genuine purpose. Most people will say that their lives have meaning, regardless of their philosophy. But a life that is created by chance, and natural selection, can have no inherent or objective purpose or meaning. Instead, such a life can only have a self-assigned, subjective meaning. A non-objective, self-assigned meaning is purely imaginary! It is a subjective opinion of what can only be a subjective reality. Conversely, a life created by design and a designer, such as the one described in Christianity, is given an objective purpose; its meaning is genuine and inherent. We may have different, subjective opinions as to what that purpose is, but these are subjective opinions concerning an objective reality.

As a demonstration of the imaginary quality of self-assigned, subjective purpose, examine the tumultuous life of 'Andy'. When Andy was in school, he decided that his goal in life was to become a doctor and help alleviate the pain of his patients. This was the self-assigned purpose he gave to his life; without this purpose, his life would have very little meaning. For 6 years, this self-assigned purpose motivated him to get up each morning. Then he became very ill and his hopes of becoming a doctor vanished. So he married a very handsome woman and put her on a pedestal. Her love gave his life meaning. His sole life's purpose was to love this incredible woman; without her, his life would have very little meaning. Unfortunately, his wife felt the same way about another man and, after 5 years of marriage, she divorced Andy. Andy then decided to buy a Harley, because he knew that his bike would never leave him for another man. That bike gave Andy's life meaning; his purpose was to become one with the wind. Then he wrecked he turned to chess...he would become the best chess player in the world...

The above scenario doesn't allow me to equate subjective, self-assigned purpose with objective, inherent designed purpose. I see the above as latching on to one diversion after another in a desperate attempt to avoid the reality of a meaningless life.

What makes the purpose created by God any less subjective than the purpose created by man?

I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design. If the designer states that the purpose of his instrument is to remove and place screws, then he has declared that purpose as the objective purpose. The opinion of such a designer, wouldn't qualify as an opinion, but rather it becomes the objective purpose of the instrument. There is nothing to stop us from turning the instrument around and using its handle to pound in nails (and I am not one to decry the usefulness of employing a screwdriver in this manner), however, that usage would not be the objective purpose for which the instrument was created.

God is, by definition, the author or designer of life. A designer designs with intention. Only the designer is in a position to know his intention; all others can only speculate concerning his intention. For example, players, without the set of instructions for a new board game, can only have opinions as to how the game is designed to be played. They don't know, with certainty, the objective intent of its designer. But when the designer reveals the objective purpose of the game through written instructions and rules, he objectively states his intention. The designer is the authority concerning his design; he is the objective authority when it comes to purpose of the design because only he can know, with certainty, its purpose. He may attempt to make that purpose known to others, but that attempt would make it open to interpretation. But to agree that the designerís expressed intentions as to how the game is to be played, are just as subjective as oneís own interpretation of the game, would be like saying to another, "We know what you think you mean, but we disagree that you really mean it."

Skeptics may say that Christians deceive themselves into believing that there is a god, in order to supply their lives with an objective purpose. Of course, whether or not this god exists remains open to debate. Skeptics, however, reject the concept of a deity, and, therefore, reject any concept of an objective purpose to their lives, but emotionally maintain that their lives have a purpose, a purpose that can only be imaginary. At least there is the possibility that our God is real, and we donít have to pretend that our lives have meaning.


This same argument can be used to make a case for God's standard of morality. Just go through and substitute 'morality' for 'meaning' or 'purpose'. God's standards of morality are objective, because He is the designer of Life.


Some may say that they refuse to play the game that God has designed. The game that He has designed, however, is the Game of Life. If you are alive, you are already in the game, like it or not. It isn't a question, then, of refusing to play, but if you are going to play to win or play to lose.

Answers to counter-arguments are given Here.

The above was borrowed, with permission, from Ex-Atheist.Com